Why do the God-haters persist?

[Montrovant]

Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.

You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?

Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best.



I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.

Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you? Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!

You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival.

There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.

You are conflating things that are not the same.

Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do.

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa. I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.

If spirituality is a behavior attribute brought about through biological evolution, if it is necessary for the survival of the species, if lack of spirituality is a detriment to human survival, why has that lack of spirituality survived so long?

If spirituality is part of our physical evolution, can you point to the physical characteristics that give us this spiritual nature? And if it is physical in nature, why the constant argument about how spirituality cannot be defined nor proven through physical sciences? If it is not something you can see through physical characteristics, why try to define it as part of evolution?

Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species. It has gone on for pretty much the entire history of humanity, it continues this very day, yet our species thrives. How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out? You basically said, "If A is true, B is true. A is true, therefore C is true.".

You harp about distortions of your words, but you cannot even maintain your own chain of logic. You do not even see what your own posts say when they are presented to you.

 

[Boss]

I'm not twisting or distorting anything. I provided quotes from you in this very thread. How is that distorting? It's your words.

When responding to the statement that proof comes before belief, you said that it does not. That is entirely different than someone being open to possibility. Belief means you think something is not just possible but accept it as real. One can be open to the possibility of something without yet accepting it as being real, as with god(s).

If you cannot see that I was pointing out how the very words you posted in this thread on multiple occasions did not say merely that a person must believe a thing is possible before they accept any evidence, you are intentionally ignoring what's been put in front of you. Sort of an example of just what you are talking about.

Well, I have been clear on what I meant since the first time I said it, and it hasn't changed. If you don't understand it by now, my repeating it isn't going to clarify anything. You should go back and read it again, because you are apparently missing something. I have gone over it in detail, given examples, explained it several times, and you continue to try and pick apart what was said to find some different meaning or comprehend it in a different way than what was intended, just so you can supposedly have an argument to make, I guess.

I've repeatedly challenged you to give an example of something you don't believe in, yet find there is credible evidence for. You can't name anything, you just keep trying to argue that I am being illogical. Maybe this ammuses you somehow, I don't know. It's getting to be annoying, to be honest. So from here on out, this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge. Capiche?

 

[Boss]

Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa. I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.

We've already seen your technique, you distort what is said and deliberately take things out of context wherever you can, in order to show everyone how fucking brilliant you are. YOU brought up Santa, when I addressed Santa, you started yammering about how Santa didn't have anything to do with behavioral attributes of evolution, which was MY point to YOU! It's not brilliant, it's not clever, it's actually a chickenshit move by a chickenshit coward who doesn't want to discuss a topic, and just wants to show what an obtuse ass clown he can be.

 

[Boss]

If spirituality is part of our physical evolution...

Where the fuck did I say this, ass clown???

 

[Boss]

Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.

Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???

 

[Boss]

How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out?

I explained it, ass clown. But you don't fucking read the entirety of the post, you jump on one sentence or phrase that you can distort the context of and show everyone what a fucking 'genius' you are at twisting what people say around on them.

Religious persecution is not a behavioral attribute, it is an action taken against a behavioral attribute. If the attribute were not important to species survival, it would have been abandoned in the distant past. Humans would have discarded it in favor of surviving. The fact that it was retained shows that it is fundamentally important to the species.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Feel free to show me where I in any way claimed you are the one who brought up Santa. I was pointing out that describing beliefs in terms of biological evolution is disingenuous, at best.

We've already seen your technique, you distort what is said and deliberately take things out of context wherever you can, in order to show everyone how fucking brilliant you are. YOU brought up Santa, when I addressed Santa, you started yammering about how Santa didn't have anything to do with behavioral attributes of evolution, which was MY point to YOU! It's not brilliant, it's not clever, it's actually a chickenshit move by a chickenshit coward who doesn't want to discuss a topic, and just wants to show what an obtuse ass clown he can be.

Compelling argumentation.
LOL!
Your oft repeated idea that you can't accept the proof of anything unless you already accept the possibility of the conclusion means you have never been shocked by anything you learned. Paradigm shifts are exactly the experience you don't believe are possible. Look them up.

 

[Boss]

So from here on out, this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge. Capiche?

What part of that did you not understand, buttmunch?

 

[MrMax]

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread. So Bossy Bully, you're the noob ass clown. But you're funny, keep it up.

 

[thebrucebeat]

So from here on out, this particular point is closed for discussion unless you wish to comply with my challenge. Capiche?

What part of that did you not understand, buttmunch?

The part where you think you have any authority to make demands of others on a public forum.
Buttmunch?
What are you, in middle school?

 

[Boss]

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.

Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?

The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.

Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral! Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.

Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.

I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.

 

[Montrovant]

Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.

Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

 

[Boss]

Religious persecution has certainly not prevented the survival of our species.

Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

 

[Montrovant]

How can you that natural selection means species weed out detrimental attributes, religious persecution is a detrimental attribute, yet not come to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been weeded out?

I explained it, ass clown. But you don't fucking read the entirety of the post, you jump on one sentence or phrase that you can distort the context of and show everyone what a fucking 'genius' you are at twisting what people say around on them.

Religious persecution is not a behavioral attribute, it is an action taken against a behavioral attribute. If the attribute were not important to species survival, it would have been abandoned in the distant past. Humans would have discarded it in favor of surviving. The fact that it was retained shows that it is fundamentally important to the species.

Oh, I read the whole post. Perhaps you didn't. Here, let me provide it for you :

Okay... Let's imagine that somewhere in the future, a 'movement' begins to stamp out belief in Santa... millions and millions of people are slaughtered and killed for believing in Santa. This goes on for centuries, through generation after generation... how long do you suppose it would take for people to abandon the practice?

Now, the concept of Santa Claus only dates back a few hundred years to an actual person who really existed and the 'folk legend' has evolved from there. Even the most skeptical believers in evolution understand that attributes take many thousands of years to come and go through evolution, so with Santa, you're nowhere near that degree of time. Furthermore, there has to be some vital survival interest at stake for the species, and there has never been any harmful aspect to the species for belief in Santa.

You are aware that evolution, in the physical, biologic use of the word, has little if anything to do with folk legends, aren't you?

Well yes, but biological behaviors are part of biology, aren't they? YOU were the one who introduced a folk legend, not me. I simply explained why your example didn't apply to what I had said about biological behaviors and evolution. Now you want to somehow twist around your illogical example and pretend I brought it up. Dishonesty at it's best.



I haven't made such a comparisson. You are now conflating species evolution with natural selection. Spirituality is a behavioral characteristic of our species. It's not "changing beliefs" but an ever-present characteristic of our human behavior as a species, which has been present since the beginning. Religious beliefs have changed, but that isn't spirituality itself.

Not all attributes take many thousands of years to come and go, you realize that, don't you? Just look at the changes in technology, medicine, philosophy, etc. since the Industrial Revolution!

You're not talking about behavioral attributes anymore. Now you are talking about ideas and knowledge. Yes, those change very rapidly in our species, mostly due to inspiration derived from spirituality. This is why we are sending men to the moon and exploring our universe and not swinging from tree to tree and fighting great apes for survival.

There is no reason ideas, even if they are generally accepted, must have some vital interest for our species.

You are conflating things that are not the same.

Well no, there's not, and I never argued there was. You twisted and distorted what I said and misinterpreted it deliberately because you think that's a clever thing to do.

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.

In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded, I think you are the ass clown.

Or did you intentionally put a misleading point about religious persecution in the same paragraph, directly after a statement about natural selection? Were you trying to conceal or confuse your point? Ass clown.

Or were you unable to realize that making the statement about natural selection and immediately following it with the statement about religious prosecution, using the same terms, would connect the two statements? Ass clown.

Just because everything boils down to spirituality for you doesn't make that true for anyone else. So when you describe religious persecution as detrimental, not everyone will assume you are trying to point out spirituality is not detrimental.

 

[MrMax]

Where the fuck did I argue it had, ass clown???

Darwin's natural selection says that species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time. Religious persecution, or the persecution of what spirituality manifests itself as, has certainly been detrimental to survival. Therefore, if Darwin was right, spirituality must have some important value to humans, else we would have discarded the behavioral attribute long ago.

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

Link? Proof? Anything but your own fartsmoke?

 

[MrMax]

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.

Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?

The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.

Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral! Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.

Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.

I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.

You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.

 

[Boss]

Take a look at that last paragraph. I put it in bold in case you have some trouble understand which one I mean.

In that paragraph, you start by saying natural selection says species discard detrimental attributes. The very next sentence you describe religious persecution as detrimental. If you do not see how your very words should lead to the conclusion that religious persecution should have been discarded.

No, I did not say species discard detrimental attributes.

Species discard unimportant attributes which are detrimental to the species over time.

Very important word is underlined for you here.

Persecution is not an attribute, it is an action. To understand how natural selection works, it's vitally important to understand the difference between attributes and actions, they are not the same thing. If actions were discarded, there wouldn't be any 'natural selection' needed. The "less fit" would be equal to the "more fit" because the "more fit" would discard their action of killing off the "less fit" for the sake of species preservation. That obviously is not the case with "survival of the fittest".

What you are doing is confusing an action with an attribute, and I am not sure whether this is because you are just plain dumb and don't comprehend the difference, or you are dishonest and want to try and establish a dishonest point.

 

[Boss]

If religious persecution is so detrimental to the survival of our species, how has our species survived and continued to thrive despite religious persecution being around throughout our history?

Queue claims of distortion.....

Because the attribute of human spirituality is far more important and fundamental to the survival of the species than it has been a detriment to survival.

Link? Proof? Anything but your own fartsmoke?

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Charles-Darwin/dp/1619491303/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396199595&sr=1-3&keywords=the+origin+of+species+darwin]On the Origin of Species: Charles Darwin: 9781619491304: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Boss]

No link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong has been shown in this thread.

Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?

The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.

Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral! Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.

Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.

I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.

You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.

You keep demanding things be "proven" and nothing can be "proven" including reality. I did present the evidence, and you've not refuted my evidence. If you do not want to accept my evidence, there's nothing I can do about that, but it's there. Lying and claiming it's not there is kind of silly, since people can read the words on the page. But whatever.

 

[MrMax]

Well actually, it has. The first thing to remember is that you tend to lie a lot. So we can't take your word on anything. If a curious mind is interested in discovering the truth, they can review the thread and my previous posts, where I did explain the link between spirituality and knowing right from wrong. But this has become a common tactic here, I will make a point to one poster, then another will drag the topic off into a superfluous argument over nonsense for several pages, then the original poster reemerges to proclaim a point was never made. I suppose the justification is, you are betting most people are too lazy to actually go back and read through 3-4 pages of nonsense to find the making of the original point. And perhaps you are correct?

The question of the relationship between spirituality and knowing right from wrong is essentially the same as a question of the relationship between a peach and a peach tree. Now one could argue that a peach is much different than a peach tree, and surely anyone can see one is a fruit while the other is a tree, so they are clearly unrelated. While this is true, there is still a correlation and relational connection. The peach couldn't exist without the peach tree. Our knowing right from wrong cannot exist without spirituality.

Oh, but Boss, now you are saying that non-spiritual people can't be moral! Not what I am saying at all. We are all spiritual people, even the Atheists and Nihilists. You see, it is hard-wired into us and part of our DNA as human beings. Our spirituality resides in the third neural sector of the brain and geneticists believe we may even have a 'spiritual gene' but research is still relatively new. Of course, some people prefer not to use that part of their brain or act upon their spirituality, but it exists in every human whether we like it or not.

Morality, as it pertains to the knowing of right and wrong, always has metaphysical justification. This is as true for an Atheist as it is for a Christian. Atheists will explain their morality as being a consideration of mutually beneficial cooperation among others. But this is a metaphysical consideration. It is determined by a sense of being and purpose, which in essence, is what our spirituality is. Morality becomes our understanding of something more important than our self interests, more important than self. Again, our spirituality.

I could actually write volumes more on the topic because it is complex and complicated, but suffice it to say, I have offered clear evidence to connect spirituality with knowing right from wrong. At least to those who have a brain. Not much I can offer to those who lack a brain.

You have proven no such link, just your own inflated opinion. Over and over again.

You keep demanding things be "proven" and nothing can be "proven" including reality. I did present the evidence, and you've not refuted my evidence. If you do not want to accept my evidence, there's nothing I can do about that, but it's there. Lying and claiming it's not there is kind of silly, since people can read the words on the page. But whatever.

As long as you admit that you can't prove the connection, that's good enough for me.